On the evening of Tuesday, June 30, 2009—just five months into his administration—Barack Obama invited a small group of presidential historians to dine with him in the Family Quarters of the White House. His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, personally delivered the invitations with a word of caution: the meeting was to remain private and off the record. As a result, the media missed the chance to report on an important event, for the evening with the historians provided a remarkable sneak preview of why the Obama presidency would shortly go off the rails.

Today, with Mr. Obama in full campaign mode, that event—as well as two more unreported White House dinners with the historians—is worth examining. Together, they shed light on the reason this president is likely to find it much harder than he expects to connect with the public and win reelection to the White House.

At the time of the first dinner, the new president was still enjoying a honeymoon period with the American people; according to Gallup, 63 percent of Americans approved of the job he was doing. Brimming with self-confidence, Mr. Obama had earlier confided to David Axelrod, his chief political strategist: “The weird thing is, I know I can do this job. I like dealing with complicated issues. I’m happy to make decisions.…I think it’s going to be an easier adjustment for me than the campaign. Much easier.”

That the adjustment from campaigner to chief executive would prove harder—much harder—than anticipated had still not dawned on Mr. Obama when he sat down to dine with the historians. He was in an expansive mood as he tucked into his lamb chops and went around the table addressing each historian by name—Doris Kearns Goodwin, Michael Beschloss, Robert Caro, Robert Dallek, Douglas Brinkley, H. W. “Billam” Brands, David Kennedy, Kenneth Mack, and Garry Wills.

During the presidential campaign, most of the evening’s dinner guests, like their liberal counterparts in the media, had dropped any pretense at objectivity. For instance, Michael Beschloss ('Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How They Changed America, 1789-1989') described Obama as “probably the smartest guy ever to become president,” which appeared to put Thomas Jefferson in his place.

Judging from Mr. Obama’s questions, one subject was uppermost in his mind: how could he become a “transformational” president and bend the historic trajectory of America’s domestic and foreign policy?

When one of the historians brought up the difficulties that Lyndon Johnson, another wartime president, faced trying to wage a foreign military venture while implementing an ambitious domestic agenda, Mr. Obama grew testy. He implied that he was different, because he could prevail by the force of his personality. He could solve the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, put millions of people back to work, redistribute wealth, withdraw from Iraq, and reconcile the United States to a less dominant role in the world.

It was, by any measure, a breathtaking display of grandiosity by a man whose entire political curriculum vitae consisted of seven undistinguished years in the Illinois senate and two mostly absent years in the United States Senate. That evening Mr. Obama revealed the characteristics—arrogance, conceit, egotism, vanity, hubris and, above all, rank amateurism—that would mark his presidency and doom it to frustration and failure.

These characteristics had already set the pattern of his administration. Mr. Obama personally conducted his own foreign policy more than any president since Richard Nixon. He made all the decisions, because he believed that only he truly understood the issues. He spent his evenings writing decision papers on foreign affairs when, instead, he should have delegated that chore to experts and devoted his time to schmoozing members of Congress and convincing them to support his programs. He still loved making speeches to large, adoring crowds, but he complained to foreign leaders on the QT that he had to waste precious hours talking with “Congressmen from Palookaville.”

“Since the beginning of his administration, Obama hasn’t been able to capture the public's imagination and inspire people to follow him. Vision isn't enough in a president.

- Anonymous Historian

The senior people in his administration proved to be just as inexperienced and inept as Mr. Obama when it came to the business of running the government. Members of his inner circle—David Axelrod, campaign manager David Plouffe, press secretary Robert Gibbs, and éminence grise Valerie Jarrett—had proven their mettle in the dark arts of political campaigning, but they had no serious experience in dealing with public-policy issues. If they could be said to have any policy exposure at all it was their ideological enthusiasms for the left.

Over the two-hour dinner, Mr. Obama and the historians discussed several past presidents. It wasn’t clear from Mr. Obama’s responses which of those presidents he identified with. At one point, he seemed to channel the charismatic John F. Kennedy. At another moment, he extolled the virtues of the “transformative” Ronald Reagan. Then again, it was the saintly Lincoln…or the New Deal’s “Happy Warrior,” Franklin Roosevelt….

Mr. Obama told the historians that he had come up with a slogan for his administration. “I’m thinking of calling it ‘A New Foundation,’ ” he said.

Doris Kearns Goodwin suggested that “A New Foundation” might not be the wisest choice for a motto.

“Why not?” the president asked.

“It sounds,” said Goodwin, “like a woman’s girdle.”

In the wake of the shellacking the Democrats took in the midterm elections in 2010, Mr. Obama held a second dinner with the historians, which was devoted to the question of how he could “reconnect with the public.”

A third dinner took place in July 2011, shortly after Mr. Obama and his team botched the budget-deficit negotiations with Congress, and the United States government lost its Triple-A credit rating for the first time in history. It revolved around the theme “the challenge of reelection.”

That fall, I spoke to one of the historians who attended all three of the dinners. We met in a restaurant where we were unlikely to be seen, and our conversation, which lasted for nearly two hours, was conducted under the condition of anonymity.

I wanted to know how this liberal historian, who had once drunk the Obama Kool-Aid, matched the president’s promise with his performance. By this time, most of Mr. Obama’s supporters were puzzled by the sense of disconnect between the sharply focused presidential candidate of 2008 and the dazed and confused president of the past three years. The satirical TV show "The Onion News Network" had broadcast a faux story that the real Barack Obama had been kidnapped just hours after the election and replaced by an imposter.

“There’s no doubt that Obama has turned out to be a major enigma and disappointment,” the historian told me. “He waged such a brilliant campaign, first against Hillary Clinton in the primaries, and then against John McCain in the general election. For a long time, I found it hard to understand why he couldn’t translate his political savvy into effective governance.

“But I think I know the answer now,” he continued. “Since the beginning of his administration, Obama hasn't been able to capture the public's imagination and inspire people to follow him. Vision isn't enough in a president. Great presidents not only have to enunciate their vision; they must lead by example and inspiration. Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the individual. He and Ronald Reagan had the ability to make each American feel that the president cared deeply and personally about them.

“That quality has been lacking in Obama. People don’t feel that he’s on their side. Obama doesn't connect. He doesn't have the answers. The irony is that he was supposed to be such a brilliant orator. But, in fact, he’s turned out to be a failure as a communicator."

If the verdict of this historian is correct, and Barack Obama’s fundamental failure as president is his inability to connect with people, he is in far more serious trouble than most people realize as he seeks a mandate for a second term in office. Or, as this historian put it: “I wouldn’t bet the ranch on his getting reelected.”

"More than that, Obama might not have the place in history he so eagerly covets. Instead of ranking with FDR and Reagan and other giants, it seems more likely that he will be a case-study in presidential failure like Jimmy Carter."

Edward Klein is the former editor in chief of The New York Times Magazine. His latest book is "The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House." (Regnery 2012)

Edward Klein is the former editor in chief of The New York Times Magazine. His latest book is "The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House." (Regnery 2012) Edward Klein is a seven-time New York Times bestselling non-fiction author. He is also the former foreign editor of Newsweek and former editor-in-chief of The New York Times Magazine. Klein frequently contributes to Vanity Fair and Parade, and currently lives in New York, New York.

Mr Klein is more than credible.

Maybe someday you can swallow your pride , and acknowledge the obvious. I would be pretty embarrassed if I voted for the most incompetent fool in presidential history, so I understand your defiance.

But I do feel better today, because barry said the economy is doing fine.
What a f@@king moron!!!!!!!!

I voted for the worst president in American history.
My bad.
I voted against him the second time when it became evident that the damage being done to our country wasnt his direct intent. He was asleep at the wheel and the country was being run directly by the lobbyists army led by Cheney.
Obama is having a slow upward struggle fixing the mess, but at least he keeps out a big part of the lobbyists, a first in American politics, and a few of them went to jail.
The topic is the effect of electing amateurs-The Teas are blocking much of the legislation that could help us,while steadily being bought by the lobbyists like the rest of Congress.
The idea was for them to straighten out the tax code and end earmarks, not cement all the big money tax ripoffs in stone. They chose the easier path.
At one time Teas who inserted earmarks were news but that is now so usual it is not worth reporting.

How funny that the crowd who favors amateurs from the Tea Party would insist on competence. Not, apparently, in foreign policy in their presidential candidate:

Quote:

Now that Mitt Romney is certain to be the Republican nominee for president, it's time to examine his foreign-affairs policies and background.

In short, he has no significant foreign policy experience. None at all. And his policy pronouncements have been disturbing.

He called President Barack Obama "naive" for announcing plans to pull troops out of Afghanistan. Well, Romney is the one who is naive, and that's the problem. Given all the dilemmas the U.S. faces worldwide, we don't need another president who figures out what to do through trial and error.

When Obama took office in 2009, he too was quite naive, though he had served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But almost as soon as he took office, Obama made a naive and damaging foreign policy mistake.

He waded into the moribund Middle East peace process and pushed Israel to stop building West Bank settlements. Well, every president since Jimmy Carter has urged Israel to stop building settlements. Every president has failed. Why on earth did Obama believe his demand would be any more effective than others had been at any other time in the past 35 years?

In fact, this time it did even more damage. Right away Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, remarked: "When Obama came to power, he is the one who announced that settlement activity must be stopped. If America says it and Europe says it and the whole world says it, you want me not to say it?"

Still, to this very day, Abbas refuses to participate in peace talks as long as Israel continues building and expanding settlements. And just a few days ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened another large expansion of settlements. All of that certainly educated Obama. You may not agree with his foreign policies, but he hasn't made a similarly naive error since.

Enter Mitt Romney, who declared a few weeks ago that "Russia is America's No. 1 geopolitical foe." What nonsense. The U.S.-Russia relationship is a bit strained, but what about Iran, North Korea, Pakistan? Every one of those states poses a strategic threat that Russia does not.

"Immediately, speculations surfaced that the former governor of Massachusetts continues to live in a Cold War world and has few, if any, insights about American foreign policy," Klaus Larres, a German-American academic, wrote for the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies. And outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told Romney to use his head and "check the time. It's now 2012, not the mid-1970s."

His advice on Afghanistan has been no better. Repeatedly he has called the plan to gradually withdraw forces "misguided" and "an extraordinary admission of failure."

In the past Romney has asserted that the U.S. and NATO need to defeat the Taliban before leaving. That's been the goal for nearly 11 years, and NATO is no closer today. The most recent National Intelligence Estimate asserts that the war is unwinnable as long as the Taliban maintains a safe haven in Pakistan, and the Afghan government continues its corrupt, malevolent and counterproductive ways.

I wonder if Romney knows that one-third of the Western forces killed in Afghanistan so far this year died at the hands of Afghan soldiers they were training or leading.

In still another display of naiveté, he has repeatedly said he would largely allow military commanders to determine policy toward Afghanistan. Doesn't he know that every military officer is taught from the first day in the service to believe that his mission is achievable, no matter what? Can you imagine a theater commander telling the president: "Sir, I can't achieve my mission. The war cannot be won. It's time to pull out."

Today, Romney is relatively quiet on the subject of Afghanistan, probably realizing that the vast majority of Americans, even most Republicans, want to bring the troops home -- now.

Through the Republican primaries, foreign affairs has not been a significant subject of debate. That's a shame. We face so many dilemmas. Syria, China, Venezuela -- even Israel, where Romney has promised to allow his friend Netanyahu, the most destructive leader Israel has ever had, to make some decisions for him.

Pandering for Jewish and evangelical-Christian votes, Romney said he wouldn't announce Middle East policy before asking Netanyahu: "What would you like me to do?"

Doug Bandow, a former Reagan administration official writing in The American Conservative magazine last month, quoted other conservatives saying President Obama is "strikingly vulnerable" in the foreign-affairs arena. But Bandow added: "So far, Romney is convincing only as a blowhard with a know-nothing foreign policy."

Joel Brinkley, a professor of journalism at Stanford University, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning former foreign correspondent for the New York Times.

Edward Klein is the former editor in chief of The New York Times Magazine. His latest book is "The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House." (Regnery 2012) Edward Klein is a seven-time New York Times bestselling non-fiction author. He is also the former foreign editor of Newsweek and former editor-in-chief of The New York Times Magazine. Klein frequently contributes to Vanity Fair and Parade, and currently lives in New York, New York. ... more than credible.

Yet in the minds of these brilliant logicians, nothing he states is true simply because it was mentioned on Fox News. If Fox reported that "2 + 2 = 4", they would rewire their calculators to match MSNBC's position that "2 + 2 = Obama".

I never swallow election predictions, especially from anyone with a horse in the race. I am encouraged lately, however, by the number of highly qualified professional pundits from both sides who are trending from "It's too close to call" to "Romney's chances are looking good", to "This is beginning to look like a Romney landslide even if the economy doesn't crash before November".

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum